John Bryant

BACKGROUND: The likelihood of distant recurrence in patients with breast cancer who have no involved lymph nodes and estrogen-receptor-positive tumors is poorly defined by clinical and histopathological measures. METHODS: We tested whether the results of a reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assay of 21 prospectively selected genes in paraffin-embedded tumor tissue would correlate with the likelihood of distant recurrence in patients with node-negative, tamoxifen-treated breast cancer who were enrolled in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project clinical trial B-14. The levels of expression of 16 cancer-related genes and 5 reference genes were used in a prospectively defined algorithm to calculate a recurrence score and to determine a risk group (low, intermediate, or high) for each patient. RESULTS: Adequate RT-PCR profiles were obtained in 668 of 675 tumor blocks. The proportions of patients categorized as having a low, intermediate, or high risk by the RT-PCR assay were 51, 22, and 27 percent, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of the rates of distant recurrence at 10 years in the low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups were 6.8 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 4.0 to 9.6), 14.3 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 8.3 to 20.3), and 30.5 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 23.6 to 37.4). The rate in the low-risk group was significantly lower than that in the high-risk group (P<0.001). In a multivariate Cox model, the recurrence score provided significant predictive power that was independent of age and tumor size (P<0.001). The recurrence score was also predictive of overall survival (P<0.001) and could be used as a continuous function to predict distant recurrence in individual patients. CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence score has been validated as quantifying the likelihood of distant recurrence in tamoxifen-treated patients with node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In 1976, we initiated a randomized trial to determine whether lumpectomy with or without radiation therapy was as effective as total mastectomy for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 1851 women for whom follow-up data were available and nodal status was known underwent randomly assigned treatment consisting of total mastectomy, lumpectomy alone, or lumpectomy and breast irradiation. Kaplan-Meier and cumulative-incidence estimates of the outcome were obtained. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of recurrent tumor in the ipsilateral breast was 14.3 percent in the women who underwent lumpectomy and breast irradiation, as compared with 39.2 percent in the women who underwent lumpectomy without irradiation (P<0.001). No significant differences were observed among the three groups of women with respect to disease-free survival, distant-disease-free survival, or overall survival. The hazard ratio for death among the women who underwent lumpectomy alone, as compared with those who underwent total mastectomy, was 1.05 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.23; P=0.51). The hazard ratio for death among the women who underwent lumpectomy followed by breast irradiation, as compared with those who underwent total mastectomy, was 0.97 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.14; P=0.74). Among the lumpectomy-treated women whose surgical specimens had tumor-free margins, the hazard ratio for death among the women who underwent postoperative breast irradiation, as compared with those who did not, was 0.91 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.06; P=0.23). Radiation therapy was associated with a marginally significant decrease in deaths due to breast cancer. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in deaths from other causes. CONCLUSIONS: Lumpectomy followed by breast irradiation continues to be appropriate therapy for women with breast cancer, provided that the margins of resected specimens are free of tumor and an acceptable cosmetic result can be obtained.

BACKGROUND: We present the combined results of two trials that compared adjuvant chemotherapy with or without concurrent trastuzumab in women with surgically removed HER2-positive breast cancer. METHODS: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project trial B-31 compared doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel every 3 weeks (group 1) with the same regimen plus 52 weeks of trastuzumab beginning with the first dose of paclitaxel (group 2). The North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial N9831 compared three regimens: doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by weekly paclitaxel (group A), the same regimen followed by 52 weeks of trastuzumab after paclitaxel (group B), and the same regimen plus 52 weeks of trastuzumab initiated concomitantly with paclitaxel (group C). The studies were amended to include a joint analysis comparing groups 1 and A (the control group) with groups 2 and C (the trastuzumab group). Group B was excluded because trastuzumab was not given concurrently with paclitaxel. RESULTS: By March 15, 2005, 394 events (recurrent, second primary cancer, or death before recurrence) had been reported, triggering the first scheduled interim analysis. Of these, 133 were in the trastuzumab group and 261 in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.48; P<0.0001). This result crossed the early stopping boundary. The absolute difference in disease-free survival between the trastuzumab group and the control group was 12 percent at three years. Trastuzumab therapy was associated with a 33 percent reduction in the risk of death (P=0.015). The three-year cumulative incidence of class III or IV congestive heart failure or death from cardiac causes in the trastuzumab group was 4.1 percent in trial B-31 and 2.9 percent in trial N9831. CONCLUSIONS: Trastuzumab combined with paclitaxel after doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide improves outcomes among women with surgically removed HER2-positive breast cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00004067 and NCT00005970.)

PURPOSE: The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay quantifies the likelihood of distant recurrence in women with estrogen receptor-positive, lymph node-negative breast cancer treated with adjuvant tamoxifen. The relationship between the RS and chemotherapy benefit is not known. METHODS: The RS was measured in tumors from the tamoxifen-treated and tamoxifen plus chemotherapy-treated patients in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B20 trial. Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to test for interaction between chemotherapy treatment and the RS. RESULTS: A total of 651 patients were assessable (227 randomly assigned to tamoxifen and 424 randomly assigned to tamoxifen plus chemotherapy). The test for interaction between chemotherapy treatment and RS was statistically significant (P = .038). Patients with high-RS (> or = 31) tumors (ie, high risk of recurrence) had a large benefit from chemotherapy (relative risk, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.53; absolute decrease in 10-year distant recurrence rate: mean, 27.6%; SE, 8.0%). Patients with low-RS (< 18) tumors derived minimal, if any, benefit from chemotherapy treatment (relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.46 to 3.78; absolute decrease in distant recurrence rate at 10 years: mean, -1.1%; SE, 2.2%). Patients with intermediate-RS tumors did not appear to have a large benefit, but the uncertainty in the estimate can not exclude a clinically important benefit. CONCLUSION: The RS assay not only quantifies the likelihood of breast cancer recurrence in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, but also predicts the magnitude of chemotherapy benefit.

PURPOSE: To determine, in women with primary operable breast cancer, if preoperative doxorubicin (Adriamycin) and cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan; AC) therapy yields a better outcome than postoperative AC therapy, if a relationship exists between outcome and tumor response to preoperative chemotherapy, and if such therapy results in the performance of more lumpectomies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women (1,523) enrolled onto National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-18 were randomly assigned to preoperative or postoperative AC therapy. Clinical tumor response to preoperative therapy was graded as complete (cCR), partial (cPR), or no response (cNR). Tumors with a cCR were further categorized as either pathologic complete response (pCR) or invasive cells (pINV). Disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and survival were estimated through 5 years and compared between treatment groups. In the preoperative arm, proportional-hazards models were used to investigate the relationship between outcome and tumor response. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in DFS, DDFS, or survival (P = .99, .70, and .83, respectively) among patients in either group. More patients treated preoperatively than postoperatively underwent lumpectomy and radiation therapy (67.8% v 59.8%, respectively). Rates of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after lumpectomy were similar in both groups (7.9% and 5.8%, respectively; P = .23). Outcome was better in women whose tumors showed a pCR than in those with a pINV, cPR, or cNR (relapse-free survival [RFS] rates, 85.7%, 76.9%, 68.1%, and 63.9%, respectively; P < .0001), even when baseline prognostic variables were controlled. When prognostic models were compared for each treatment group, the preoperative model, which included breast tumor response as a variable, discriminated outcome among patients to about the same degree as the postoperative model. CONCLUSION: Preoperative chemotherapy is as effective as postoperative chemotherapy, permits more lumpectomies, is appropriate for the treatment of certain patients with stages I and II disease, and can be used to study breast cancer biology. Tumor response to preoperative chemotherapy correlates with outcome and could be a surrogate for evaluating the effect of chemotherapy on micrometastases; however, knowledge of such a response provided little prognostic information beyond that which resulted from postoperative therapy.